Horse racing commission asks court to toss Maximum Security lawsuit on Kentucky Derby DQ

Billy Kobin
Courier Journal

The Kentucky Horse Racing Commission is asking a federal judge to dismiss the lawsuit filed by Maximum Security owners Gary and Mary West, arguing the couple's attempt to reinstate their horse as the winner of the 145th Kentucky Derby has no legal basis.

The commission's motion, filed June 8 in U.S. District Court in Lexington, reiterates how Kentucky statutes say racing stewards' decisions are "final" and "not subject to appeal."

The horse racing commission's attorneys also state in the motion that the commission's "no-appeal rule" has been in place for 60 years.

"Instead, the Wests want this Court to make the call and determine the winner of the Derby — a demand that threatens to transform the 'most exciting two minutes in sports' into tedious, protracted litigation," the racing commission's motion states. "But their mere disagreement is insufficient to support a claim that their Constitutional — or any other — legal rights have been violated."

Related:Maximum Security's owners ask court to summarily declare it winner of 145th Kentucky Derby

In a 32-page memorandum, the commission's attorneys write "horse racing may be the 'sport of kings,' but it is still that — a sport."

"As with every sport, it has rules to foster consistent, fair and safe play, and neutral arbiters, whether called referees, umpires, judges — or in this case, stewards — who enforce these rules," the motion reads.

The  motion was filed by Carmine Iaccarino, with the Kentucky Public Protection Cabinet, along with racing commission General Counsel John Forgy and Deputy General Counsel Shawn D. Chapman.

Forgy told the Courier Journal the horse racing commission had no additional comment at this time.

The motion came about one week after the Wests asked U.S. District Judge Karen K. Caldwell to summarily order their horse reinstated as winner of the 2019 Kentucky Derby.

Maximum Security crossed the finish line first in the Run for the Roses. But after several jockeys lodged complaints, stewards conducted a review and determined Maximum Security interfered with other horses. Country House, the second-place finisher and a 65-1 longshot, was declared the winner.

The Wests sued the racing stewards along with KHRC's commissioners and executive director on May 14, after the commission refused to consider their appeal, citing a rule that stewards’ rulings are final.

Lawyers for the Wests, including Lexington equine lawyer D. Barry Stilz, have argued stewards failed to find Maximum Security was not “clear” of other horses when he allegedly chose a different path on the track.

Stilz did not immediately return a request for additional comment Tuesday.

The Wests also argued stewards were required but failed to find that even if Maximum Security committed a foul, the result of the foul altered the finish of the race.

See also:Derby jockeys told stewards Saez wasn't at fault for Maximum Security's disqualification

Finally, lawyers for Maximum Security's owners said stewards had discretion not to disqualify Maximum Security, but went ahead and disqualified the winning horse for the first time in the history of the Kentucky Derby.

Attorneys for the Wests said stewards violated their rights given to them under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.

The couple is asking that Maximum Security be named the winner and that the purse money be redistributed in accordance with the original order of finish; the winner's share for the race was $1.86 million while the jockey and trainer were denied $186,000 each.

The horse racing commission states in its June 8 motion that Kentucky laws make clear that participating in horse racing is "a privilege and not a personal right."

Since the Wests own Maximum Security and are licensed by the Kentucky racing commission, they "agreed to the Commission’s regulations, and agreed that the stewards’ determinations are final," the motion reads.

The motion also cites comments from chief state steward Barbara Borden following the Derby in which she explained how stewards found Maximum Security "drifted out" and "impacted the progress" of War of Will, who then impeded Long Range Toddy and Bodexpress.

Also:With a Maximum Security win, there would have been no Kentucky Derby controversy

As for the due process complaint, the commission says the Wests were never awarded the purse money before the official results of the Derby were released.

"The Wests can neither claim a property interest nor assert a due process claim in a purse they never won," the horse racing commission's motion says.

The commission's motion says the court is required to dismiss the Wests' complaint since it fails to "state a claim upon which relief can be granted."

The commission said the Kentucky Court of Appeals previously reviewed and upheld the rule that prohibits appeals of stewards' decisions.

That ruling came following a March 2015 race at Turfway Park, according to the commission.

The commission also argued that no Kentucky statute gives right to appeal.

Luis Saez, the Panamanian jockey who rode Maximum Security, is appealing a 15-day suspension he received from the commission, saying the punishment was undeserved and that it was unduly harsh.

The commission will hold a hearing on Saez's appeal at a yet-to-be determined date.

Reach Billy Kobin at bkobin@courierjournal.com or 502-582-7030. Support strong local journalism by subscribing today: courier-journal.com/subscribe.